As a newly-independent world, Bajor has a right to declare any minor left on their world to be Bajoran citizens and to terminate the parental rights of a foreign citizen of a previously-occupying power. Under Bajoran law -- and DS9 was Bajoran territory, so Bajoran law would be all that mattered -- Kotan would only have whatever rights the Bajoran government chose to regard him as having. I didn't say that, either. What I did say was that removing him from his Bajoran parents constituted an act of kidnapping on the part of Kotan, the Cardassian Union, and the Federation. I, too, think that some sort of joint custody arrangement should have been arrived at. But that doesn't justify the unilateral remove of Rugal from his legal parents. And since I'm defending her choice to depict Rugal as self-righteous and angry at Kotan in the novel, it's perfectly appropriate to go by the interpretation of "Cardassians" that the novel was based upon. Not really, because the Bajoran government pretty much rolled over for the Cardassians and Federation and allowed them to abduct one of their citizens from their own space station without making a serious, long-term attempt to defend a legal Bajoran family's integrity. He wanted to return Rugal to be raised under a military dictatorship, where he would be in constant danger of being murdered by the state for having deviant political opinions. That alone should have prompted the Bajoran government to regard Kotan as an unfit parent. Kotan's choice to remove Rugal to Cardassia was fundamentally damaging to him. While he was a good person, and his decision was motivated as much by his culture as his desire to be with his child, his choice was very fundamentally abusive. You should, because this is a debate about the novel. There's no reason to exclude information from the novel in evaluating it. And at what point do the child's rights come into play? The child's right to be raised by parents he knows and loves, to be raised in an environment that is conducive to his freedom and his rights as a Bajoran citizen, in an environment that isn't perennially trying to kill him for not espousing state orthodoxy?
Wow, this thread has been lively! Thanks everybody for your comments on the book; it is much appreciated. Thrawn, thank you for your generous words; that's an interesting note too about the balance of material and I'll have a think about that. ZMistress, I'm sorry my interpretation of Rugal didn't work for you, particularly as this is one of your favourite episodes. I'm glad you liked the Cardassian background though. Technobuilder, writing Garak is huge fun, one of my favourite activities! I'm finding the debate about the rights and wrongs of Rugal's repatriation really interesting, thank you all.
No, he's come to claim his rights as Rugal's biological father. There's no indication that Kotan would have taken Rugal by force if Sisko hadn't willingly handed the kid over. Remember, Kotan is not a member of the military. He was *opposed* to the military - remember his long standing feud with Dukat? Kotan ordered the withdrawal from Bajor in the first place! Kotan wanted to raise his son, pure and simple. His motivation was only that. Not to raise Rugal in a dictatorship - Kotan would do whatever he could to insulate Rugal from the military's clutches. In the end, Kotan and Proka both would abide by whatever Sisko rules. If Sisko says Rugal goes to Cardassia, then Kotan is not committing kidnapping by taking his son there. End of story. As for Bajoran law: Sisko *is* the Emissary, after all. I would wager that the Bajorans would respect his ruling, in any case.
I'm not sure you realize what a FRIGHTENING proposition this is. You've just stated that a government has the right to come in and terminate somebody's parental rights just because their child got caught on the wrong side of the border, with no evidence whatsoever that he cannot be a good father to Rugal? That, to be blunt, is exactly the sort of move Cardassia would pull against the Bajorans. Your scariest statement of all is that you state that Kotan only has parental rights at the behest of the Bajoran government. I'm sorry, but his rights can and must be regarded as inherent rights unless he can be legally proven by a proper investigation to be an unfit parent. The adoption is certainly not legal if you have a biological parent who is fit to be a father and able to be a responsible and loving parent, and who has come forward to accept custody of his own child. Don't misinterpret the delay in Kotan's arrival as evidence that he was unloving or unfit. The only reason he was not able to come forward sooner is because Dukat engineered things to make Kotan believe that his son was dead--who knows how much evidence Dukat sabotaged to make sure that any search attempts on Kotan's part would come up as fruitless? Hell, the guy might not even have been able to get a permit to get out of Cardassian space and search in person, until the discovery of Rugal aboard DS9 forced Dukat's hand. So instead you decide to deny Kotan his rights because HE is, to a Bajoran point of view, holding a deviant opinion. Very interesting, that. You still have not proven that Kotan himself is an unfit parent--your problem is in fact the environment of the Cardassian Union, which of course DOES have some major problems, but your solution to that is to simply destroy this man's parental rights. And if the Bajoran government did this, without even offering what I'm going to term the "exile option," it would be for something that borders dangerously close to being because of his race and a deep-seated belief that a Cardassian simply can't love a child the way a Bajoran can, and that because Proka is Bajoran, he can do no wrong. (Which is quite ironic considering the words we heard come out of Gul Madred's mouth once. This is the same attitude, just in actions.) Instead, offer Kotan the following solution. He may have custody--but he must renounce his Cardassian citizenship and take up residence on Bajor. Watch how he reacts THEN...that will be your telling indicator of how fit of a parent he really is. If he is willing to give up his home, his status, his wealth, everything except what he has brought with him into Bajoran space, for the sake of his only son, then he will have more than earned the right to raise his own boy. I know that if it came down to something like that for me--if I had to choose between my home and my child...I would choose my child, every time. There is even some tantalizing evidence in canon to suggest that if the Bajorans HAD presented Kotan with that choice, he would have accepted. If there is one thing that a Cardassian places ahead of the State, it is family. (And we wonder why Garak refused to form attachments!) Tekeny Ghemor went into exile for the sake of a woman he felt was as close to him as his daughter. Even the epitome of what's wrong with Cardassia, Skrain Dukat, chose his daughter over status in society and forgave what would have been an unforgivable crime to a Cardassian--Ziyal's "treason"--because he valued his love for her more. I think it is not at all implausible that Kotan would have given up all of Cardassia for his son. There absolutely is; the novel is only one possible interpretation of the circumstances that we saw in "Cardassians." What I am trying to demonstrate is that there is more than one plausible conjecture from that scenario. Let me turn now to the other side of this question. The novel's interpretation notwithstanding (which is certainly one legitimate choice), you still have not answered the question about Proka's fitness to be a parent. The Federation and Bajor may have disproven the physical abuse allegations, but they never offered any satisfactory conclusion as to the question of whether he was being psychologically abused by Proka and the other Bajoran adults in his life. The self-loathing--the biting--those did not come out of nowhere. To face persecution on the basis of your race when the person who claims to loves you agrees that you should despise yourself is one of the most withering things any child can go through. That is most certainly abusive, and I truly believe that Rugal has a right, if these allegations are true, to be cared for by someone who unconditionally loves him and who can help him to undo those scars of self-loathing. Make him move to Bajor, if you cannot abide by sending him back to the Cardassian Union (where at least this time, Rugal will go in open-eyed, KNOWING the situation that he's facing and able to evaluate it and maintain his own beliefs even if inwardly, unlike when Dukat's soldiers threw him to the wolves when he was too young to understand what was happening to him). But for Rugal to be denied his biological father simply because the Bajoran government does not want to acknowledge that a Cardassian man CAN be fit and DOES have the same inherent, God-given right as a Bajoran man in his situation would have, that is cruel and unusual to say the very least.
Another thing to consider is that we, as viewers, are supposed to believe Proka's version of events unconditionally - because he's Bajoran. I mean <sarcasm intended> of course Bajorans never lie, do they? It's always a matter of the good Bajor vs. the evil Cardassia? Kotan Pa'Dar is a Cardassian, so that alone makes him an unfit parent? Well, the hell with that. People always keep telling me that I have a worldview that's too literal, that doesn't allow for shades of gray? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything, innit? Even if Proka wasn't physically abusive - and I grant that there isn't any overt, indisputable evidence that he is - he certainly could have seized upon the opportunity to turn one of Cardassia's own against it. And that must be considered and investigated. However much he loved Rugal, there's an opportunity for Proka to do a bit of re-education and indoctrination of his own that simply cannot be dismissed out of hand. And in some ways that's just as bad as physical abuse. Of course, Proka's experiences during the Occupation (whatever they may have been) can't be dismissed either. It's probably not simple racial prejudice that made him raise Rugal the way that he did. But no matter what happened before, it doesn't excuse Rugal being raised to hate his own people. NOTHING justifies that. And for the record, I believe Kotan's sincerity. We all saw his pain. You can't fake that.
WELL-said, Mr. Laser Beam. The indoctrination aspect is what disturbs me most, because the Cardassians are decried (rightly) for this all the time, but they sure don't have a monopoly on it. No one has a monopoly on injustice.
I'm not saying that Kotan has no natural rights. But we don't know that the concept of natural rights exists from a Bajoran POV. What we do know is that as a sovereign world, Bajor would have the right to refuse to acknowledge the natural rights of non-Bajoran citizens. I am, in essence, arguing from a Bajoran legal perspective, without assuming that Bajoran law includes the concept of natural rights. And even if Bajoran law does include the concept of natural rights, we don't know what that means. For all we know, Bajoran law may regard a parent as having a natural right from the Prophets to raise their children, but may regard that right as being derived from the bond children build with their parents -- in which case, Kotan, not being the subject of Rugal's parental bond, would have no natural rights as a parent under Bajoran law. Or perhaps Bajoran law would regard anyone who wants to emigrate to a military dictatorship like Cardassia as forfeiting their natural parental rights. If we start talking about natural rights under Bajoran law, we ultimately have nothing more than speculation. But it is an established fact in real life that governments will pick and choose which natural rights it will regard a person as actually possessing, and that as such Kotan would only have whatever standing under Bajoran law the Bajoran government chooses to perceive him as having. In other words -- it should have been left up to the Bajorans to decide, and no one else. Not the Federation, and not the Cardassians. No, because, amongst other things, it doesn't involve invading Cardassian territory and subjugating its populace. That is a distinctly Western legal concept that doesn't even exist throughout the entire world today. To try to apply that standard to a conflict between two non-Human, non-Federation worlds is absurd. Now, do I personally believe that Kotan has natural rights as a parent? Yes. Does that mean I think that that belief ought to be imposed on other cultures? No. Do I think that his natural rights as a parent justify taking Rugal away from Bajor against his will? No. Do I think his natural rights as a parent entitle him to joint custody of Rugal on Bajor? Yes. We don't know that. Remember, we're dealing with Bajoran law, which might be different in any number of ways from real life law. Wanting to raise anyone on a military dictatorship like Cardassia would, from the standpoint of the Bajorans, almost certainly be considered so abusive as to render such a person an unfit parent. The Bajorans have seen how brutal living under a government that's constantly looking for a reason to kill you can be; they would know full well how damaging growing up on Cardassia would be for a child, because all of their children have been subjected to that kind of brutality already. Perhaps you missed the part where I said: I'm not advocating regarding him as having no natural rights as a parent. I'm saying that, 1. the Bajoran government has the right under interstellar law to regard him as having whatever natural rights as a parent it wants, because to deny them that right is to deny Bajoran sovereignty; 2. Kotan and the Prokas should have worked out a joint custody agreement with the Bajoran government, on Bajor; 3. Kotan had no right to remove Rugal from Bajor or to nullify the parental rights of the Prokas, which are just as valid under Bajoran law as his, and whom Rugal loves as his parents; and 4., that choosing to raise Rugal on Cardassia is itself an abusive choice because of the fundamental dangers inherent to living under the rule of the Cardassian state. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. If this is modified to require Kotan to share joint custody of Rugal, then this is an option I'd fully support. And if Kotan were willing to live on Bajor and share custody with the Prokas, then as far as I'm concerned, he should have the same rights under Bajoran law that the Prokas do and custody of Rugal should be treated like custody of any child in an amicable divorce. Yes, but we are debating the reasonableness of novel's characterization of Rugal. We are not debating the episode "Cardassians" and its other valid interpretations -- and, further, the debate over whether or not Kotan had the right to remove Rugal from Bajor (and, by extension, what kinds of rights he would have had under Bajoran law) are side-arguments that are besides the point, which is the reasonableness of McCormack's characterization of Rugal based upon the premises built into the novel. We are debating The Never-Ending Sacrifice by Una McCormack, not the episode "Cardassians." Specifically, the argument went this way: CLAIM: Rugal was unsympathetic in The Never-Ending Sacrifice because he was angry and self-righteous. COUNTER-CLAIM: Yes, but in The Never-Ending Sacrifice, that characterization is reasonable because Rugal was the victim of kidnapping. COUNTER-CLAIM: But that's only if we agree to the assumptions the novel makes. COUNTER-CLAIM: But we're arguing about the novel's characterization choices, and as such it is appropriate to evaluate the novel on its own terms. Once again: It was perfectly reasonable for the character of Rugal in The Never-Ending Sacrifice to be angry and self-righteous given the things the novel depicted him as being victim of. It would be perfectly reasonable for Rugal to have a different set of characterizations if another novel were working from a different interpretation of "Cardassians," too. But The Never-Ending Sacrifice was working from a particular set of interpretations of "Cardassians," and the characterization choices McCormack made based upon those interpretations were perfectly reasonable extrapolations to make from those interpretations. That was already a given. I wasn't arguing against other interpretations of "Cardassians," just that the characterization of Rugal we see in The Never-Ending Sacrifice is reasonable from the interpretation of "Cardassians" the novel uses. Back to the side-arguments: No. Answer my question first: At what point do the child's rights come into play? I don't have to. You have to prove the Prokas' unfitness as parents (and please remember that Proka is the surname, not the given name -- the father's given name was Migdal), just as I would have to prove Kotan's unfitness. They both have parental rights that cannot be taken away unless they're proven unfit parents. Completely true. It's also completely true that no one proved that Rugal's Bajoran parents were psychologically abusing him like that. That self-loathing could just as easily have come from loving Bajorans and seeing the Cardassian government so brutally oppress them. It could, in other words, literally just be another example of the trauma inflicted upon innocent people by the Cardassian Union. To assume that it must be the Prokas mentally abusing him is unreasonable. The episode obviously failed to explore this question in sufficient depth. But I'm not going to just assume guilt on the Prokas' part. There are no God-given rights under Bajoran law. The Bajorans don't believe in God. They believe in the Prophets. These are not Humans we're dealing with. At most, Kotan might be regarded as having the same inherent, Prophets-given rights as a Bajoran man; we don't know what Bajoran law says about that. When I said above, "They both have parental rights that cannot be taken away without proving they're unfit parents," I agreed with the idea of their both having natural rights as parents for the sake of the argument, but the fact is, we don't know what kinds of rights Kotan would have under Bajoran law. The only party whose rights under Bajoran law are known are the Prokas, because we know that their adoption was legal under Bajoran law.
So would you claim that every Cardassian father and mother is an unfit parent? After all, they want to raise their children on Cardassia. If Kotan is unfit simply because he wants to raise Rugal there, then you must logically believe that EVERY Cardassian parent is unfit - simply because they are Cardassian. All Kotan wants is to raise Rugal in his own home. It just so happens that this home happens to be on Cardassia. Kotan's motives are not to abuse Rugal by subjecting him to the machinations of Cardassian politics. He simply wants his son to live with him - wherever that happens to be. And besides, Kotan - by virtue of his high standing within the Cardassian government - is in a position to *insulate* Rugal from those worst elements, anyway. He can keep Rugal away from the clutches of Central Command, the Obsidian Order, etc.
No, because it's not clear at all that most Cardassians (pre-Federation Alliance victory) agreed with the tactics of the Cardassian government, and it's pretty obvious that most of them are prevented from leaving Cardassian territory by the Cardassian government. As DS9's "The Wire" noted, it is said that no one on Cardassia Prime can so much as eat breakfast without the Obsidian Order observing and recording it. The Cardassian people are not free in their own world, and cannot leave it. In other words, I would tend to regard most Cardassian parents as being prisoners of the state, and their presence in Cardassian territory is not evidence of a desire to live under the Cardassian government or to raise children under an abusive government. But someone who deliberately wants to take a child out of a liberal democracy and subject that child to totalitarian rule? Yes, that's abusive. That's an absurd piece of logic, since it ignores the fact that anyone who isn't the head of the Obsidian Order or Central Command is basically a prisoner of the state. And I'm not saying that someone who wants to raise a child on Cardassia is an unfit parent -- I'm saying that someone who wants to raise a child under the totalitarian government of the Cardassian state is an unfit parent. For a comparison: Yes, I think that the U.S. should have found the father of Elián González an unfit father for wanting to raise his child under the Castro dictatorship. But the very act of moving to Cardassia makes Rugal subject to the abuses of the Cardassian government. The Cardassian system was inherently tyrannical; it was impossible to live on Cardassia without becoming a victim of the government's oppression. In my view, even if we set aside the Prokas' parental rights, Kotan's moral duty was clear: He should have defected to the Federation, to Bajor, or to some other liberal democracy. Had he done this, I would not in any way consider him an unfit parent. But deliberately removing a child from a liberal democracy, where he is free, and subjecting him to the abuses of a totalitarian state is an inherently abusive choice. No, he's not. Did you miss the numerous episodes of DS9 that established that even the political elites of Cardassia were under constant Obsidian Order surveillance and subject to sudden arrest, interrogation, torture, and murder if they deviated from state orthodoxy? Tekeny Ghemor didn't go into exile for fun, he went into exile because he'd been found out and would have been killed. It's a truism of life that often the people least free in totalitarian systems are those who are highest up.
And yet you are arguing that Bajor has the right to deprive Kotan of his right to be Rugal's parent at a whim--that a government is permitted to treat him differently on the basis of his race. If that is so, then that is every bit as bad as Bajor preparing to reinstitute the D'jarra caste system--which as I recall, did NOT go over well with the Federation at all. Let me explain why. That logic is just as abhorrent as the sort of logic that has been used by various totalitarian regimes in this world and in the Star Trek universe. As we know, the Cardassians do not regard orphans or prisoners of war as members of society with rights...they therefore are able to justify severe acts of torture and neglect. After all, it does not matter because these are unpersons in their point of view. So, let me put this to you. And let me make it very clear from the outset that I do NOT condone the official stances of the Cardassian government. You have argued through a number of your posts (and several times in reply to this post, which I will consolidate to one) that the actions of the Cardassian government are unconscionable and that to have a child live in such an environment is in and of itself an act of abuse. Yet if we are to apply to the Cardassians the same relativistic standard that you do to the Bajorans, then these acts of torture are OK since they must be "right" for the Cardassians. You even remove any grounds to claim that Cardassians are victims of the state...after all, if this is the system that the Cardassians have set up for themselves, then it must be "right" for them. If that's the case, then you cannot say that their environment is inherently abusive, because it's just what's "right" for Cardassians, and it should be no skin off your or anybody else's nose to send Rugal back. After all, if no society or its laws and ways are better or worse than any other, what's the problem? But if you DO call Cardassia on its violations, whose existence I unreservedly acknowledge, then for Bajor to engage in similar behavior--to decide that Kotan has no rights because he is Cardassian--is just as reprehensible and must be equally condemned. Just because it might be occurring on a "smaller" scale as the Cardassians' sweeping injustices does not make it any less of an injustice. Just because one fails to acknowledge an inherent right does not deny its existence or diminish the requirement for justice. If the Cardassians fail to acknowledge the rights of prisoners, they are still not excused when they violate them. If the Bajorans fail to acknowledge Kotan's parental rights, then they are not excused either: those rights are still there. Either those rights exist or they do not, and if they do, then the only morally acceptable action is to act as those rights demand. If they do not...then there is no reason for us to intervene in any case of injustice, because the very concept of an "injustice" disappears and expediency becomes the only arbiter of one's actions. Joint custody, of course, is only acceptable if BOTH Proka and Kotan Pa'Dar can be proven not to be abusive parents. That claim, of course, was never satisfied in the episode. I, however, was not a party to the entire argument--and I have checked back in the thread to make sure of it. Side debate it may be, but I interjected and took the debate in a different direction, all the way back to the interpretation of the episode "Cardassians." I fully acknowledge that I did that, but that doesn't affect the legitimacy of what I am saying, in its own right. I believe the episode provided a very, very poor and incomplete exploration of the issue. Given this, the novel has quite the surfeit of material to conjecture from. It is quite understandable how Ms. McCormack came to her conclusions and I read it much as I would read one of the old TOS novels: due to the lack of information and depth we got from the episode, all that she does, from proving Proka's non-abusiveness onward, is conjecture based on very little. Ms. McCormack's creativity, in the face of so little material to work with, is certainly commendable. That said, we should have seen a mention of the joint custody option, since she interprets Proka as a fit parent. We should have seen the Bajorans and Starfleet criticized for not offering this option to Kotan and Rugal. (If, of course, you remove the assumption that Proka must have been a fit parent, you get three very different options: 1) return Rugal to Cardassia, 2) have Kotan take sole custody of Rugal in Bajoran territory--which even leaves the station as an option so that Rugal gets some exposure to Bajoran culture but has Starfleet in charge of the school system and security so that the Pa'Dars cannot be mistreated on the basis of their race, or 3) some sort of foster care by other Bajorans. In this scenario I would opt for #2...your only real threat there is Garak, and if need be he can be put under tighter surveillance than he's already under.) I am fully aware that Proka is his surname. However, since I have been counting Rugal as a Pa'Dar, I've got two Pa'Dars to contend with (Rugal and Kotan), and distinguish them by their first names. And who is to say you must not prove that the Prokas are fit? The episode never gave us enough material to make that determination, so throwing it back on me is not going to work. I am providing options in an IF-THEN format. I have not even stated FOR SURE that Proka is abusive...but that if he IS, that has GOT to be acknowledged legally and Rugal cannot be left to be belittled by Proka. And it is just as bad to automatically assume that every evil is wholly Cardassian in origin and that Bajorans never commit abuse. I do not claim 100% that Proka HAD to be guilty, but that we dare not forget the very real possibility that he is. And if you ask me, the investigation was woefully deficient in that it stopped at the physical level. While the period of legal limbo would've been very unpleasant for all parties, make no mistake, we should've seen a much longer period in which Rugal was under the care of a court-appointed guardian (and the O'Briens seemed to be serving in that capacity for a short time) while extensive interviews of those who were around Rugal were conducted, and while he underwent a LOT of counseling, to determine what the real truth was. OK, perhaps I could've said Prophet-given, but it's the same exact concept and you're attempting to annul everything I said on a tiny item. As to the issue of what rights Kotan ought to have, I've dealt with that already at the top of the post.
Well, I'm back. My short exile from Trek civilization is over (all networked up ), and in the mean time I finally got my hands/pincers on "The Never-Ending Sacrifice". I wasn't disappointed. It was an incredibly moving novel, and one of the finest explorations of the concept of love that I've ever read, inside or outside of Trek. What I particularly admired was how smooth the novel was, despite its jarring subject matter. All of the various forms of love -- for parents or children, friends, romantic partners, places, people-you-don't-have-words-for-yet -- were treated with the same quiet dignity and without any extremes of passion. True love is a state of being, not an emotional exhertion, and the novel captured that perfectly. It takes a very skilled writer to portray the complex web of intimate-but-troubled relationships displayed here without reducing it to soap-opera style silliness. That's one of the great strengths of the novel- that it never comes across as contrived. The novel was somewhat...gentler...than I expected for a story covering the harshest and most haywire period in Cardassian history. This is by no means a complaint, as the story was very much focused on character, not on world-building (despite the pleasingly detailed look at Cardassian politics). This helped prevent it from retreading the ground already covered so wonderfully in "A Stitch in Time". There's nothing like the harsh summary and revelations in ASIT, there's simply Rugal getting on with his life. Overall, Cardassia seemed somewhat...distanced...compared to ASIT or "Terok Nor". I think this was wise. After all, we already know what happens. Even more so than Lang or Rugal, we know the final consequences of the continuous cycle of sacrifices Cardassia demands. So, there's not really much to say, is there? When the genocide comes, McCormack wisely keeps the focus on the outlying systems rather than returning to Cardassia Prime, because what's done there is done. I think it's notable that we never see Kotan's final moments. He simply isn't there anymore, and his passing isn't commented on until later- and then, quite briefly. I particularly enjoyed the focus on the former DMZ, and the relations between Cardassians and humans following the Maquis defeat and then the war- a subject that until now hasn't received the attention it should. It was also pleasing to see the effects of the Founder leaders' genocide in these outlying regions; we know what happened on Prime, but the outyling colonies have been crying out for attention. It was also gratifying to see the aftermath of the war on the worlds directly affected, seeing as up until now our access point for post-war recovery has mostly been Bajor/DS9, which came through largely unscathed. The character work throughout was wonderful, and I was pleased with Rugal as a lead. I did feel that Rugal himself took a back seat to his own experiences and what was happening to him during the section set on Ogyas, but that is not a complaint given that he had more important things at the time to focus on than who he was . The distance from the character was needed, I think, to communicate his situation. That distancing also helps add extra weight to the passage when he realizes that going back to Bajor was a somewhat foolish dream. All the characters were well-handled. Again, it takes skill to create a character like Geleth without turning her into a cartoonish caracature. I think the stand-out scene for me was Geleth's death, and her asking Rugal to participate in shri-tal. I very much shared Rugal's final view of her, great admiration for her courage and perseverence, as well as disgust at her actions and unrepetent selfishness (and glee in continuing these fueds). I found Tret Khevet's death very moving, too- it was nice to see Cardassian school-friends who weren't simply calculating former Traing-Academy-from-Hell buddies (as in ASIT) Even the more minor characters like the human captain of the Lotos; her comment to Rugal to keep safe because "Cardassians are rarer than they used to be" endeared me to her very much. Garak was a delight, of course- McCormack always writes him wonderfully. He had just the right amount of presence, too, with McCormack avoiding the urge to cry "Whoooo! Garak!!" and spend pages on him (which must be the temptation). Instead he was there for the role he played in Rugal's story, not for gratitious Garaking (not that Garaking is a bad passtime). His speech at the hearing about the need for Cardassia to let go was a highlight, as it reminded me of my favourite scene in Trek lit: that in "A Stitch in Time" where Garak realizes that what Rugal has seen most of his life and "turns his back" on old Cardassia by walking out of the basement. The plot and the character interaction were very successful in integrating beautiful idealism with reality- an integration that always means a lot to me when pulled off properly. I think my favourite example of this was when Arani arrived at the farm. Where before you had the almost idyllic existence of Rugal and Hulya, now their life on their land becomes...troublesome...due to their little bubble of isolation being penetrated by, well, a person (and that's another point- everyone in the novel is a person, not just a walking plot point). Arani's arrival was quite amusing in bringing everything back down to earth; and also useful in breaking that bubble, which was important, I think, to Rugal and Hulya's healing. The idea of coming back into the world, finding these new friends and building new connections, while simultaneously leaving Cardassia behind- their old lives are gone- was a nice counterpoint to the "reaffirm Cardassia, but break the pattens we've made" development taking place back on Prime. I notice the neo-Hebitians made no apperances here- perhaps because their answer lies in looking in a different direction to Rugal and friends? I always wondered what happened to Rugal, and I'm very pleased with what we got. I'm not really sure where the story could go from here; it's very complete without being finished, which is what a story truly focusing on people and their lives should be. On the one hand, I really want to see more of Rugal, but on the other, it really does seem like his story was told. Perhaps a mention of him now and then, just to clarify that he and Penelya and Hulya are still living in their farm house on Ithic with their little community of Cardassians? I was amused/moved that the novel finished with the "new Cardassian ritual" of amazed "how did you end up here?", and pleased that the answer didn't really matter (though I'm guessing Garak worked his magic ). Again, this was a satisfying love story specifically because it never gave us unrealistic displays of passion- the love, whatever variety it took, was always nicely understated, and it was right that Rugal and Penelya simply...met up, and went off together. I've read reviews that have suggested that "The Never-Ending Sacrifice" is more a novel that happens to be set in the Star Trek universe than a Star Trek novel, so to speak. I agree entirely, and this only adds to its strength. In a similar way, it is more a novel that happens to feature Cardassia heavily than a novel about Cardassia; because this is Rugal's story, and while Cardassia is a part of him, he is not Cardassia, not in the way someone like Garak is. You might have thought the novel was about Rugal trying to balance Cardassian-ness with Bajoran-ness. In the end, it wasn't a book about Cardassians, or Bajorans or humans, but about people. Rugal didn't have to choose between or even integrate (Ziyal-fashion) Cardassia and Bajor, nor, in the end, did he have to choose between Kotan and his adoptive parents. Rugal is simply a person, and he doesn't have these labels anymore (nor does Hulya, who isn't his daughter and isn't really "human" or "Cardassian"). That's a great idea on which to leave the story.
From the perspective of interstellar law, it does, in the same way that states today have that same right. Not in the sense of, "According to natural law they have that right." In the sense of, "No other state has the right to force them to respect an individual's natural rights." Nor am I saying that Bajoran law would grant the Bajoran government that right. For all we know, Bajoran law may well regard Kotan as possessing inherent, natural, Prophets-given rights as a parent that the state cannot deny. We don't know. What I am saying is, Bajor answers to no one but itself, and it would be a violation of Bajoran sovereignty to argue that it has legal obligations that Bajoran culture does not acknowledge (even if we agree that it has moral obligations it does not acknowledge). I am, in short, arguing in favor of the Prime Directive -- that the Federation did not have the right to force Bajor to adhere to its ideas of what Kotan's rights were. I never said that. In point of fact, I argued that, from an outsider's perspective, the Bajoran government would have the right to refuse to acknowledge anyone's rights on any basis whatsoever under interstellar law. Again, the intent is not to say, "Bajor has that right in accordance with the principles of liberal democracy" or "Bajor has that right in accordance with Bajoran law," but, rather, "Bajor has the right to make these determinations either way, and no other state, and especially not the Federation in the person of Commander Sisko, has the right to interfere with how the Bajoran government decides this case." No, it didn't. But the Federation didn't have the right to force Bajor to stop, either; the most the Federation could do was refuse to allow Bajor to enter the Federation as a member world. The Federation had no right to force Bajor to respect what the UFP regarded as natural rights, however. I never said that they were okay or right, nor did I say it would be okay or right for Bajor to deny Kotan his natural rights as a father just because Rugal was taken from him. You are persistently misreading my argument. I am, again, arguing that Bajor has the right to make these determinations however it likes, even if it is doing the wrong thing, from the perspective of interstellar law. I'm not arguing that Bajor has the right from an "objective" moral POV; I'm arguing that Bajor, like any sovereign governments, has the right to make immoral decisions without other governments interfering. Put it another way: The cultures of Europe mostly believe that the United States is committing a fundamental violation of its citizens' natural rights when it practices, on a federal or state level, the death penalty. When a European citizen is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, European governments do everything they can to stop their citizens from being so executed. Yet I am quite confident that you would argue that the states of Europe have no right to force the United States to change. Why? Because even if the U.S. is violating its citizens' natural rights, the United States has a right to retain its own sovereignty and to make these decisions for itself without interference from foreign states. Now, I would agree that to deny someone their natural rights for arbitrary or racist reasons is morally wrong. I would agree that Bajor should have some reason other than, "You left him here, he's not yours anymore" if it's going to nullify Kotan's natural rights as a parent. I would agree that Bajor should regard everyone as having equal natural rights under Bajoran law. But I also think that the Federation, in the person of Sisko, had absolutely no right to make the custody decision regarding Rugal whatsoever. It was an internal Bajoran matter that should have been settled by the Bajoran government. That Sisko made the decision to send Rugal to Cardassia was a fundamental violation of Bajoran sovereignty. Might the Bajoran government have made the morally wrong decision? Yes. But sovereign states have the right to do the wrong thing from the perspective of other states. It is their own citizens who need to force them to do the right thing, not foreign states. Similarly, the Federation had every right to condemn the abuses of the Cardassian Union. And it would have every right to refuse to protect what it regards as the natural rights of a minor in its territory by refusing to allow that minor to be removed to Cardassia. But it would have absolutely no right to interfere with the internal affairs of Cardassia, and would have no right to force the Union to stop abusing its citizens' natural rights. That's the Prime Directive. That's the only way to stop cultural imperialism within your own house. Sure; the Federation would have every right to condemn it, to try to persuade the Bajoran government to change its mind, to try to support Bajorans who advocate for a different decision. But the Federation would have no right to force Bajor to change its custody decision; it would have no right to take Rugal from Bajoran territory and send him to Cardassia. Custody of Rugal should have been decided by a Bajoran court; Sisko and the Federation had no right to make the decision to send Rugal to Cardassia, and in doing so, he violated Bajor's sovereignty. Sure. But that doesn't give the Federation the right to interfere with the decisions of the Bajoran government, or to take a decision that is within Bajoran jurisdiction away from Bajor. There's nothing moral about violating another state's sovereignty and engaging in cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialists often justify their acts by claiming that they are acting in the interests of their victims' natural rights -- yet they inevitably end up violating more of their victims' natural rights than the native government ever did. Then you should have specified what you were saying, because this argument was about something else entirely. I'm not sure what you mean by "conjecture." It's all equally fictional, after all. The novel is based on a certain interpretation, and for its own purposes (and the purposes of other novels set in continuity with it) those interpretations are definitive. It's not like she's writing a work of fiction based on reality. Um, we did see criticism of the Federation and Bajoran government all throughout the novel. You're forgetting the role of Migdal's wife (whose given name I cannot recall at the moment); she is also a party to this discussion, and as such she and Migdal should be referred to as the Prokas to refer to them collectively. Basic logic. You are the one making the claim that they are unfit; you have to provide evidence of it. One does not prove a negative. Then one cannot prove on the basis of the episode that the Prokas were unfit parents. On this, we agree -- the episode was woefully deficient in its exploration of the abuse issue.
Deranged Nasat, thank you very much for your rather wonderful review. You picked out some of my own favourite bits - Geleth's shri-tal, Tret Khevet's death scene. Gratuitous Garaking - oh, if only I could get to do that all day! It's so interesting how many people have remarked that Garak must have had a hand in getting Penelya to Cardassia Prime to meet Rugal: I honestly hadn't made that connection myself, but he must have done, mustn't he? I'm really pleased that you liked Arani's appearance, and I like how you describe it: she's just another person that's turned up, but she has significant and not always welcome effects. I was thinking of John Christopher's wonderful post-apocalyptic YA novel Empty World. And I totally, absolutely agree that in the end Rugal is not so much trying to balance being Cardassian or being Bajoran, but is trying to work out how to be Rugal. Thank you so much for such a generous review, I am very grateful.
The Federation wasn't forcing anything. Proka and Kotan asked Sisko to mediate the dispute. They (and probably the Bajoran government at large, as well, since Sisko is the Emissary after all) indicated that they would abide by Sisko's decision, whatever that may be. Proka was obviously sad to see Rugal go, but he didn't lodge a protest or try to stop Kotan from taking Rugal. Given this, how can you say anything was forced?
(I loved the book too, I just didn't feel the need to add a review.) Actually, the impression I got while reading it was that Penelya had made her way to Cardassia on her own, expecting to find Rugal there (possibly even as he was making his way to Ithic). There was a sense of irony to their "how did you end up here?" act. And I can see Rugal and Penelya setting up in Andak with the O'Briens. Ithic is nice, but Penelya (and now, though still to a lesser extent, Rugal) understand the concept of duty to the state. It occurs to me that Prime could use some good farmers right now (more than Ithic needs the symbol of peaceful Cardassians). Keiko & Penelya would likely get along great, and Hulya would get to hang around kids her own species & age (giving her an opportunity Rugal likely regrets not having).
My understanding was that she went back to Cardassia before the unpleasantness with the Dominion at the end of the war, and was caught by surprise Rugal had gone. I do agree that it makes sense that Garak might've let her know that it would be a good idea to visit someplace important on that particular day, though.
Because it's clearly illegal. The Bajoran court system should have been the institution to decide this issue, not Sisko. It's not Proka's and Kotan's to ask Sisko to rule on.
I finally finished The Never-Ending Sacrifice, and while it wasn't completely what I expceted, it was still a fantastic read. Initially, this is how I felt about the novel. However, I realize this is partially my fault because I went into the novel with the expectation that the entirity of the novel would focus on Rugal's perspective of how Cardassia changed throughout the years completely on Cardassia. As Deranged Nasat pointed out, the novel isn't about Cardassian or Bajorian people, it's about people. That all being said, as a huge fan of Cardassian culture (thanks to A Stitch in Time), I relished every moment of Cardassian culture the novel did provide and the end, I love the story for what it was. Of course, I loved Garak's appearances, but I also loved Miles' and Keiko's appearances. I had only hoped that we got to see more of how post-war Cardassia was developing beyond "The Lotus Flower" (and again, I had gone into the novel expecting we would see plenty of this and Rugal's direct involvement with the rebuilding process) but this shouldn't be held against the novel. Lastly, I have to say Geleth reminded me a lot of Livia in I, Claudius and that I could easily see Siân Phillips "playing" Geleth. This was probably entirely unintentional but I especially felt this during Geleth's shri-tal. Oh, by the way, Steve, Alon Ghemor didn't appear on the show.
Sisko is commander of DS9, so yes, it is. And as I said, Sisko is the Emissary, so the Bajoran government has likely given him quite a bit of leeway in this issue anyway. The immediate dispute is located on DS9, so it's Sisko's job to smooth it over. What Bajoran court would go against the word of the Emissary? I mean, who knows what would have happened if Proka and Kotan had taken their dispute to Bajor itself. The fact that they didn't, suggests that it wouldn't have mattered. Also: Assuming that post-Occupation Bajor even *has* a functioning judicial system, they were not likely to give a Cardassian - *any* Cardassian - a fair shake, so it's in the best interests of all concerned to have the dispute mediated by a neutral party, i.e. Sisko. That's part of the reason why Proka and Kotan asked him to. He's the only arbiter they would both accept. Kotan would never agree to take the issue to Bajor itself, so they had to do something to resolve that impasse.
No, it's not, because DS9 was still Bajoran territory, and none of the parties to the dispute were subject to the Starfleet Uniform Code. As such, Rugal should have been handed over to the proper Bajoran child welfare agency, and Rugal should have sued for custody in a Bajoran court. No, the immediate dispute was located out of Bajor because the Prokas and Rugal were residents of the planet, not residents of DS9. They were mere guests on the station, not permanent residents; they remained permanent residents of Bajor, and, as such, jurisdiction over the dispute would have fallen to a Bajoran court. 1. All Bajorans don't think alike. 2. Even if they did, that's a perfect illustration of a Federation official using his power to interfere in Bajoran sovereignty. No, it suggests that Sisko engaged in an act of cultural imperialism. It did, as established in "Dax." So what? It's still not the Federation's to decide. That Sisko got involved represents a fundamental violation of Bajoran sovereignty and of the Prime Directive.